WELL so, the multiplecaptain theory was nothing but a decoy: Sourav Ganguly, despite a string of open denials and many subtle signals, has finally been divested from the Kolkata Knight Riders’ throne. It is possible that he wouldn’t have been touched if the IPL had not moved out of India, if KKR’s base had remained in Kolkata. But then, that is in the realm of conjecture; so let us leave it there only, at least for now. The fact, however, seems that KKR wanted a new leader this time; by suddenly giving complete charge to Brendon McCullum, they have unwittingly let the wily cat out of the bag. The other captains can give back their crowns now. The question is: why has the theory attracted so much ire? Why have even the sanest of experts torn it apart so contemptuously? Is it because it had been propagated by an Australian coach? Or because it had been done by someone with barely any track record as a player? Surely, it is not because it involves Ganguly, not because he always seems to be at the receiving end. Whatever the motive, it is interesting to study the concept, to look at its potential as a strategic tool. First and foremost, let us understand that every sports person is his own captain on the field. Whether it is a footballer or a basketball player, he takes innumerable decisions on his own, usually in a split second. A quick pass? A direct shot? Attack? Defend? There is no time to mull over the choices; the player follows his gut-feeling, and depending on his own skill and confidence, picks his move on an impulse, instinctively. Similarly, in cricket, every player is his own captain. Whether as a batsman, a bowler, or even a fielder, he takes his own calls: a bouncer? (Duck or hook?) Outside the off stump? (Leave or cut?) However, that is where his initiative ends. The cricket captain in some ways is larger than life, if not the game itself: unlike in other sports, he is not just the leader on the field whose job is to keep the flock together; he can’t be only mother, father, brother, teacher for each and every player. He takes decisions for everybody, for the team as a whole: bat first or bowl; who will bat when; which bowler at what time; which fielder where. Each of these has a direct bearing on the match. No doubt, batting, bowling and fielding are three totally different departments; so, it even seems logical to split them. The main problem, however, is that they all overlap. A fielding captain, for example, will look stupid if he doesn’t know what the bowling captain has in mind. Imagine the plight of the bowler who has just got a set of instructions from the bowling captain and an entirely different message from the fielding captain (by his placements). Worse, what happens if all three disagree? And that, indeed, is the crux of the problem: cricket brooks as many opinions as there are heads; the old wife’s tale about too many cooks was probably hatched with this game in mind. Indeed, right since it was invented, one man has led the cricket side and taken all the calls; the others, no doubt, chip in with their inputs, insights and ideas. That is the way it is going to be, unless the three captains can somehow be seamlessly merged into one. bobilli.vijay@timesgroup.com